flickr photo use controversy

In article ,
"Waterspider" wrote:

I’m sure some of you have photos on flickr and other public display websites, so have a look at this. Raises some interesting legal and ethical issues.
http://flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/

No ethical or legal issues involved. The image was released under a Creative Commons attribution license. That means anyone is free to use the image for any purpose, or to create any derivative works based on the image, provided the source of the original image is attributed. This appears to be what Virgin Mobile has done.

If people do not want their images used, then they should not be released under a Creative Commons license. Had this image not been published with a Creative Commons license, Virgin Mobile could not have legally used it.

When an image is published on the Web, it is protected by copyright and may not be used without permission unless the creator explicitly says otherwise. By releasing it with a "Creative Commons" attribute license, the creator of this photograph explicitly gave anyone who wants permission to use it, though she may not have been aware that’s what she was doing.

—
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

tacit wrote:

In article ,
"Waterspider" wrote:

I’m sure some of you have photos on flickr and other public display websites, so have a look at this. Raises some interesting legal and ethical issues.
http://flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/

No ethical or legal issues involved. The image was released under a Creative Commons attribution license. That means anyone is free to use the image for any purpose, or to create any derivative works based on the image, provided the source of the original image is attributed. This appears to be what Virgin Mobile has done.

If people do not want their images used, then they should not be released under a Creative Commons license. Had this image not been published with a Creative Commons license, Virgin Mobile could not have legally used it.

When an image is published on the Web, it is protected by copyright and may not be used without permission unless the creator explicitly says otherwise. By releasing it with a "Creative Commons" attribute license, the creator of this photograph explicitly gave anyone who wants permission to use it, though she may not have been aware that’s what she was doing.

That why I do hate all this "all is free" way of life these days, the day Photoshop (or whatelese that big) will be free,
everything even the photos retouched with it must be,
because noone would pay for anything in the world except for real things such as cars, food, and home.
Unfortunately all of the "vitual" goods (since coding is not that virtual, especially for the coder)
doesn’t even need a material support (such as a CD) to remind customers that behind "virtual" there’s also "work". I feel no pity for the photographer
(learn to read before you post) but for the person on the photograph, not even for the lack of money, but for the lack of control to drive her own life.

PS: if you do your job freely, how can you pay for a car, food and home? Forgive any english mistake 🙂
—
Infinitech
desperate for job in UK (REALLY)

tacit wrote:

In article ,
"Waterspider" wrote:

I’m sure some of you have photos on flickr and other public display websites, so have a look at this. Raises some interesting legal and ethical issues.
http://flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/

No ethical or legal issues involved. The image was released under a Creative Commons attribution license. That means anyone is free to use the image for any purpose, or to create any derivative works based on the image, provided the source of the original image is attributed. This appears to be what Virgin Mobile has done.

If people do not want their images used, then they should not be released under a Creative Commons license. Had this image not been published with a Creative Commons license, Virgin Mobile could not have legally used it.

When an image is published on the Web, it is protected by copyright and may not be used without permission unless the creator explicitly says otherwise. By releasing it with a "Creative Commons" attribute license, the creator of this photograph explicitly gave anyone who wants permission to use it, though she may not have been aware that’s what she was doing.

This still requires a model release for the commercial use. The subject matter is more than X% of the image.

On Jul 2, 3:01 pm, Rob wrote:

tacit wrote:

In article ,
"Waterspider" wrote:

I’m sure some of you have photos on flickr and other public display websites, so have a look at this. Raises some interesting legal and ethical issues.
http://flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/

No ethical or legal issues involved. The image was released under a Creative Commons attribution license. That means anyone is free to use the image for any purpose, or to create any derivative works based on the image, provided the source of the original image is attributed. This appears to be what Virgin Mobile has done.

If people do not want their images used, then they should not be released under a Creative Commons license. Had this image not been published with a Creative Commons license, Virgin Mobile could not have legally used it.

When an image is published on the Web, it is protected by copyright and may not be used without permission unless the creator explicitly says otherwise. By releasing it with a "Creative Commons" attribute license, the creator of this photograph explicitly gave anyone who wants permission to use it, though she may not have been aware that’s what she was doing.

This still requires a model release for the commercial use. The subject matter is more than X% of the image.

The photographer needs to arrange this, surely? The photographer published the image in Flickr, Flickr then republishes it (or allows 3rd parties to republish) via the CC license. If the photographer did not clear the use of the model (or subject matter) before publishing it on Flickr, it is not Flickrs problem… the photographer is liable, not Flickr.

"SpaceGirl" wrote in message

On Jul 2, 3:01 pm, Rob wrote:

tacit wrote:

In article ,
"Waterspider" wrote:

I’m sure some of you have photos on flickr and other public display websites, so have a look at this. Raises some interesting legal and ethical
issues.
http://flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/

No ethical or legal issues involved. The image was released under a Creative Commons attribution license. That means anyone is free to use the image for any purpose, or to create any derivative works based on the image, provided the source of the original image is attributed. This
appears to be what Virgin Mobile has done.

If people do not want their images used, then they should not be released under a Creative Commons license. Had this image not been published with a Creative Commons license, Virgin Mobile could not have legally used it.

When an image is published on the Web, it is protected by copyright and may not be used without permission unless the creator explicitly says otherwise. By releasing it with a "Creative Commons" attribute license, the creator of this photograph explicitly gave anyone who wants permission to use it, though she may not have been aware that’s what she
was doing.

This still requires a model release for the commercial use. The subject matter is more than X% of the image.

The photographer needs to arrange this, surely? The photographer published the image in Flickr, Flickr then republishes it (or allows 3rd parties to republish) via the CC license. If the photographer did not clear the use of the model (or subject matter) before publishing it on Flickr, it is not Flickrs problem… the photographer is liable, not Flickr.

Yes, this is the crux of the issue. Many people (amateurs) take photos of strangers in public places, and post them on flickr or whatever, without it occuring to them that the images might be used for advertising. So… the "model" has a legitimate complaint, but his or her only recourse is to sue the unwitting photographer, while the company who used the image remains guiltless.

In article <46890538$>,
Rob wrote:

This still requires a model release for the commercial use. The subject matter is more than X% of the image.

True, in the United States. The image was used in Australia, where United States laws do not apply.

—
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

In article <4688b568$0$12562$>,
"Infinitech" wrote:

That why I do hate all this "all is free" way of life these days, the day Photoshop (or whatelese that big) will be free,…

I’m a big fan of choice. A photographer can give his stuff away if he wants to, or he can charge for it if he wants to. It’s his stuff; he gets to choose.

I think that the problem is the number of people who do not understand the idea of copyright, or who do not understand what the Creative Commons copyright license means.

—
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <4688b568$0$12562$>,
"Infinitech" wrote:

That why I do hate all this "all is free" way of life these days, the day Photoshop (or whatelese that big) will be free,…

I’m a big fan of choice. A photographer can give his stuff away if he wants to, or he can charge for it if he wants to. It’s his stuff; he gets to choose.

I think that the problem is the number of people who do not understand the idea of copyright, or who do not understand what the Creative Commons copyright license means.

Virgin’s ad agency should know what model release means and made sure they had one before using it
now the photographer gave permission (unwittingly or not) to use her likeness maybe could get sued for that??
and they are off the hook?

I was unhappy how they slip that into FLICKR
the terms are very confusing
I added copyright notice to my photo captions to make sure what do you think? can they steal my stuff with impunity for commercial purposes??
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kw-retouch

tacit wrote:

In article <46890538$>,
Rob wrote:

This still requires a model release for the commercial use. The subject matter is more than X% of the image.

True, in the United States. The image was used in Australia, where United States laws do not apply.

And I post from AU

On Jul 2, 11:16 am, "Waterspider" wrote:

Yes, this is the crux of the issue. Many people (amateurs) take photos of strangers in public places, and post them on flickr or whatever, without it occuring to them that the images might be used for advertising. So… the "model" has a legitimate complaint, but his or her only recourse is to sue the unwitting photographer, while the company who used the image remains guiltless.

Another problem is people who post pics that aren’t theirs with no concept at all of copyright. I used to partipate in a mailing list for my favorite breed of horse. Somebody posted that they were starting a website and wanted photos. I questioned whether it was a commercial website, and she said no, but it turned out to be a commercial website as I suspected. But the worst part is that people were sending in photos of their horses that were taken by professional photographers. I posted a warning to remind people that they did not have the right to do this, and questioned whether the photographers would be pleased to know that their photos were being used free of charge on a commercial website, making money for somebody else.

They just couldn’t grasp the concept. They thought they were being friendly and helpful, and didn’t realize that they were helping a company to cheat the photographers.

KatWoman wrote:

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <4688b568$0$12562$>,
"Infinitech" wrote:

That why I do hate all this "all is free" way of life these days, the day Photoshop (or whatelese that big) will be free,…

I’m a big fan of choice. A photographer can give his stuff away if he wants to, or he can charge for it if he wants to. It’s his stuff; he gets to choose.

I think that the problem is the number of people who do not understand the idea of copyright, or who do not understand what the Creative Commons copyright license means.

Virgin’s ad agency should know what model release means and made sure they had one before using it
now the photographer gave permission (unwittingly or not) to use her likeness maybe could get sued for that??
and they are off the hook?

I was unhappy how they slip that into FLICKR
the terms are very confusing
I added copyright notice to my photo captions to make sure what do you think? can they steal my stuff with impunity for commercial purposes??
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kw-retouch

I looked in the license options and it seems there’s effectively two choices (with a handfull of sub-choices).

You can either select one of 6 Creative Commons Licenses, which effectively gives anyone and everyone the right to steal your intellectual copyright away from you.
Or you can choose the "No License" option which has the subtext "All rights reserved".

Now I have the latter "No licence – all rights reserved" option selected, but I’m unsure as to where I stand with this legally.
Does that mean that no-one can use my images without first seeking my permission, and paying me if I choose to demand payment?

I find all this legal mumbo jumbo so confusing.

—
http://www.norfolklupus.co.uk
http://www.thebooknook.co.uk
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40919519@N00/

"Fat Sam" wrote

Now I have the latter "No licence – all rights reserved" option selected, but I’m unsure as to where I stand with this legally.
Does that mean that no-one can use my images without first seeking my permission, and paying me if I choose to demand payment?

It means that it’s illegal for anyone to use your images without your permission and, if you require, payment for such use in countries that uphold copyright laws. Unfortunately, not all do, and not all people obey the law. It is protection of your image use only from honest people.

WS

"Fat Sam" wrote

Now I have the latter "No licence – all rights reserved" option selected, but I’m unsure as to where I stand with this legally.
Does that mean that no-one can use my images without first seeking my permission, and paying me if I choose to demand payment?

To add to my previous post, I guess an analogy would be a digital restraining order.

In article <MMwii.13875$>,
"Fat Sam" wrote:

Now I have the latter "No licence – all rights reserved" option selected, but I’m unsure as to where I stand with this legally.
Does that mean that no-one can use my images without first seeking my permission, and paying me if I choose to demand payment?

That is correct. "All rights reserved" means you retain all rights to the image–nobody can use the image without your consent.

—
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html